3 ms·
>Panpsychism suggests that all matter has proto-conscious traits, not just brain-like consciousness. I think a cornerstone of panpsychism is that none of the c
by glenstein 3y ago
>Panpsychism suggests that all matter has proto-conscious traits, not just brain-like consciousness.
I think a cornerstone of panpsychism is that none of the concepts presently available to any physicalist explanation is sufficient or on the horizon, therefore it is necessary to entertain such ideas as a universe-spanning proto-consciousness.
I find this position to be pre-emptive, not in the spirit of scientific open mindedness, not compatible with any research program that could prove or disprove it, and completely emptyhanded in any conversation that seeks to understand consciousness in functional or structural terms as well as completely emptyhanded in even beginning to explain the combination problem.
Until it gets its act together and gets out of alpha-testing, I fault pansychism proponents for bringing a "teach the controversy" approach to a table of scientific investigation at which they are yet to have earned a seat.
- altruios 3y agoI mean, experiments should be able to test this? Maybe in the future someone will find a way to adapt the double slit experiment to test for 'choice' on a fundamental particle level. "Can a particle choose for itself?"
- glenstein 3y agoThat's a very creative potential experiment, and I do hope some such experiments can be proposed! However, my understanding of the double slit experiment is that the "observer" in the experiment means something more like measurer or measurability, which can be done by devices. And it shouldn't be construed as being deeply tied to consciousness in philosophically important sense.
- altruios 3y agoMy understanding was 'measuring is touching' with light, imparting energy into the delicate system, and no measurement can be done at that scale (thanks to the rules of light frequency/energy) that can both detect it and be weak enough to not bother the result. So when I say like the double slit needs to be adapted, it would need to account for such. It would need to test for 'choice' from a particle... somehow... Or... maybe randomness as a concept is flawed. Maybe randomness === '(some level of informed?) choice' from particles we are not privy too. not some 'hidden variable' but a dynamic ability to 'choose'? How would we prove random is random and not a choice/decision we can't see or understand?
- BlueTemplar 3y agoSupposedly Bell's inequality means there are no hidden variables (or implies even weirder things) ?
- altruios 2y agoI am not talking about 'hidden variables'. More like... 'hidden (unfound as of yet) functions'...